Balkan Medieval History and Archaeology

The modelling and visualisation of networks is based on the material in: M. Mullett, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop. Birmingham 1997.

The first graph is a visualisation of the connections between letters in localities between which these letters were exchanged (" 2mode network").

The second graph is a visualisation of the weighted network of localities on the basis of Theophylact´s correspondence; two localities are connected if letters of Theophylact were exchanged between them. Links are scaled according to the number of letters within Theophylact´s collection documenting exchanges between them.

The third graph visualises these connections between localities on a map. Links are again scaled according to the number of letters within Theophylact´s collection documenting exchanges between them. The size of nodes is scaled according to their number of connections within the network ("degree").

The fourth graph is a "zoom" into these geographical visualisation of the network for the Western Balkans; links are again scaled according to the number of letters within Theophylact´s collection documenting exchanges between them.

For the localisation of sites within the historical region of Macedonia cf. also the upcoming volumes on Macedonia (Southern Part) by Peter Soustal and on Macedonia (Northern Part) by Mihailo Popovic within the series "Tabula Imperii Byzantini" (http://www.oeaw.ac.at/imafo/die-abteilungen/byzanzforschung/communities-landscapes/historische-geographie/)

For any further questions, please contact [email protected].

Εγχειρίδιο Βυζαντινής Ιστορίας, 4ος - 11ος αι. [Οnline Byzantine History, 4th - 11th c. AD]. Ηλεκτρονικό μάθημα ΙΒΥ 601: Βυζαντινή Ιστορία Ι (324-1081), Tμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Φιλοσοφική Σχολή ΑΠΘ, αναρτημένο στην επίσημη διαδικτυακή πλατφόρμα "Open Courses Auth" / "Ανοικτά Ακαδημαϊκά Μαθήματα ΑΠΘ": https://opencourses.auth.gr/courses/OCRS403/

This article aims at presenting for the first time a different interpretation
of the origin of part of the archaeological findings from the Bulgarian lands related to the Early Middle Ages armament for close combat and in particular with the swords and their structural elements. On the basis of parallels and reports from artistic and written sources, the examined samples of arms are viewed through the prism of the Arab (Middle East) military art, which undoubtedly influenced the development of
Byzantine military art. It is known that the Eastern Roman Empire (as any empire) is multicultural in its population. A large number of cultures scattered across vast areas of Eastern Europe and Asia are intertwined. This is the reason why we would expect to find the elements of armament, specific for territories far away from Balkans and to relate their occurrence on the lands of First Bulgarian Kingdom with the direct Byzantium influence. Close attention has been paid to the Middle
East narratives, which mention the development of Middle East arms centers during the Early Caliphate – VII – VIII century. The great similarity in the constructive meaning of the Early Medieval cut and thrust weapons and their structural elements found in the territory of the Balkans and Middle Europe with examples from the Middle East, suggests that if not directly imported from Asia Minor /by commerce,
military way or gifts/they were manufactured under Middle Eastern influence and probably represent a derived part of Middle Eastern military art.

The establishment of the Bulgarian Khanate along the Lower Danube River and the Northern Black Sea coast changed the geo-political situation in the early medieval Southeastern Europe. It is beyond doubt that the Bulgarians did not develop navy or commercial fleets at that time. However, one cannot reveal substantial reserves about the statement that Khan Asparukh' descendants were not completely disadvantaged by their Black Sea coastline that they managed to keep under control due to political and military reasons. This becomes clear if the prolonged series of clashes between Byzantium and Bulgaria in 750s-770s are taken into consideration. Despite an obvious usefulness of the cooperation between land armies and navy squadrons in those endeavors, as well as the nonchallenged Byzantine maritime supremacy along the Black Sea shores, the Imperial navy met substantial difficulties or did not completely accomplish its tasks on many occasions.

Το 1899 ανακαλύφθηκε από τους αρχαιολόγους Fyodor Uspensky, M. Popruzhenko, Vasil Zlatarski και Karel Škorpil, στο χωριό Τσαταλάρ, κοντά στην πόλη Πλίσκα (Pliska) της ΒΑ Βουλγαρίας μια ενδιαφέρουσα πρωτοβουλγαρική επιγραφή, η οποία χρονολογήθηκε στο 822 μ.Χ. και είναι γνωστή στην ξένη βιβλιογραφία ως  “The Chatalar Inscription” (= η επιγραφή του Τσαταλάρ). Εκτίθεται στο Μουσείο της Πλίσκα.

The monograph (text in Greek language) examines in depth the life, military career and especially the uprising ("stasis") of the Norman (some claim Frank) mercenary commander of the Byzantine imperial army Ursel (or Roussel) de Bailleul, also known as "Ursellus de Ballione" (in Latin), "Roscelin" and "Roskelin". In medieval Greek narrative texts Ursel's name was attributed as "Ρουσέλιος" or "Ουρσέλιος" or "Ρωσέλης ο Φράγγος" and not as "Φραγγόπωλος" (= "Son of Frank"), as many modern researchers claim incorrectly. Besides Ursel's life and actions, the book also studies the internal political and military situation of the Byzantine Empire during the crucial period of the mid-11th century AD.

From what we know, Ursel served initially under the leaders of the Norman Hauteville family during their conquest campaigns in the Southern part of the Italian peninsula and in Sicily. According to Gaufredus Malaterra, he took part under the command of Roger de Hauteville in the battle of Cerami (Sicily, June 1063 AD) against the Saracens (i.e. Zirid Arabs), where he fought with bravery. Soon after that though, he chose to enlist in the ranks of the contemporary Byzantine army; for a time he served in the Balkan peninsula as an imperial mercenary officer. According to the inscription of his preserved seal, he held the Byzantine title of "vestes" (the reverse seal's invocation to Virgin Mary reads "Θεοτόκε βοήθει τω σω δούλω Ουρσελίω βέστη τω Φράγγω" / "Mother of God protect your servant vestes Ursel the Frank").

Some years later, Ursel took active part in the campaign, that led to the famous battle of Manzikert (26 August 1071 AD) between the Byzantine army, led by the emperor Romanos IV Diogenes, and the Seljuk army of sultan Alp Arslan; he did not fight in the battle itself though, as his cavalry force was obliged to withdraw from nearby Chliat and retreat to the West suffering casualties under strong enemy pressure. For his failure to reunite and reinforce the forces of Romanos, before the critical main clash of the two armies in Manzikert, Ursel was accused -rather incorrectly in our opinion- of cowardice and betrayal.

After the dethronement and the blinding of of Romanos IV (1072), Ursel continued to serve his successor, emperor Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078). He then decided though to betray the Byzantines (1073) and take advantage of the chaotic conditions that prevailed in Asia Minor (Anatolia) after the battle of Manzikert (intra-Byzantine conflicts, Turkish incursions, population fleeing etc.). Apparently, Ursel's main aim between 1073-1076 was the foundation of a personal hegemony within the limits of the same geographical region (perhaps a new small "Normandy", as the Hautevilles managed to create in Southern Italy). After defeating the Byzantines in the battle of Zombos bridge (in Sangarios river), he marched until the Asian suburbs of Constantinople, where he sacked Chrysopolis; he then even tried to impose his own candidate for the imperial throne (the captured Caesar John Doukas, uncle of Michael VII). In his efforts, Ursel was supported primarily by the Frankish and Norman knights and soldiers that the Byzantine government had already posted in Asia Minor, especially in the Armeniakon thema and the local city of Amaseia, where the Norman leader was apparently popular (primarily because of fear, according to Byzantine writers). The Byzantine government had to negotiate then with Turkish emirs (i.e. Artuch and Tutach), who had infiltrate with their forces in the area of Bithynia; Michael Doukas' regime also tried to secure the support of the "Great Seljuk" sultan Malik Shah, in order to suppress the movement of Ursel. The Turks managed to defeat the numerically inferior army of Ursel and captured the Norman leader; soon after that though the latter managed to escape. Ursel found then refuge, along with his family, in the Armeniakon, where he had additional trusted soldiers as local guards. Finally, the talented young general (and future emperor) Alexios I Komnenos achieved Ursel's arrest in Amaseia and took him as a captive to the Byzantine capital.

In our opinion, the rebellion and actions of Ursel has been of key importance for the collapse of imperial control in the interior of Asia Minor after 1073 and the establishment of incoming Turkish tribes within the area. It also prevented for three years (i.e. 1073-1076) the immediate communications of Constantinople with the vast Eastern border and neighboring areas of the Empire (extending from Cappadocia and Cilicia to Northern Syria, Northern Mesopotamia and Western Pontus); that situation led -more or less- to the loss of central imperial control over the local (Armenian and other) officers and forces and -consequently- of the above geographical area. In a sense, Ursel's movement heralded subsequent political and military developments (i.e. the arrival of the Western Crusaders and its implications) in the Middle East.

U tekstu su analizirani objavljeni rezultati nedavnih iskapanja starokršćanskoga bazilikalnog kompleksa i ranosrednjovjekovnih grobova u tumulima kod Ljupča pored Nina. Originalna interpretacija pripisuje uništenje kompleksa i ranosrednjovjekovne grobove doseljenim Slavenima. Analizirajući postojeće informacije u širem kontekstu, tekst nudi alternativnu interpretaciju nalaza, kojom se ukazuje na metodološke probleme s kojima se često u hrvatskoj arheologiji susreću pokušaji identificiranja ranosrednjovjekovnih Slavena u Dalmaciji.

In this paper are analysed published results of recent excavations of early Christian complex and early medieval graves in burial mounds in the area of Ljubač near Nin. The original interpretation ascribed the destruction of the early Christian basilical complex and the appearance of early medieval graves to recently migrated Slavic groups. By analysing the existing information in a wider context, this paper offers alternative interpretation of the finds, discussing methodological problems encountered by the Croatian archaeologists attempting to identify early medieval Slavs in Dalmatia.

Кулешов Вяч. С. Средиземноморье, Балканы и Восточная Европа: памятники монетного обращения еврейских общин (VIII–XIII века) // Белградский сборник : К XXIII Международному конгрессу византинистов (Белград, Сербия, 22–27 августа 2016 года) / Научные редакторы В. Н. Залесская, Ю. А. Пятницкий. СПб.: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2016. (Труды Государственного Эрмитажа. [Т.] LXXX.) — С. 85–104.

Няма съмнение, че съдбата на пленниците от военните сблъсъци на Балканския полуостров през XIII в. е привличала и ще продължава да привлича вниманието на учените. Наред с това, що се отнася до проследяване на аспекти около случващото се с пленените по време на война има достатъчно щрихи за добавяне. Празнотите в това отношение, поне в някаква степен, са изненадващи, доколкото регионът е арена на постоянни по-големи или по-скромни по мащаб конфликти. Самата тема за пленничеството, макар и да не е пренебрегвана, сякаш е изтласкана в страни, тъй като рядко заема централно или съществено място в изследванията по военна история на средновековните Балкани. В този смисъл опитите да се откроят моменти от съдбата на пленниците са резонна част от усилията да се придаде повече повече плътност и дълбочина на познанията за региона през динамичното тринадесето столетие.

(Medieval Archaeology and nation building in the Western Balkans: The situation in Bosnia-Herzegowina - summary:) This preview-article deals with the Medieval and, partially, Historical Archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegowina of the last 25 years and its problems caused by nationalism, religious influences, victims myths and lack of funding. This article sums up the key points of the thesis and gives few examples of the archaeological work, its conditions and its characteristics in Bosnia. At the end an attempt is made to give suggestions for a non-national, interregional, rational and cooperative European archaeology as well as a strict political neutrality and acceptance respectively support of criticism from scientific institutions. 

Der als Vorschau auf eine Masterarbeit dienende Artikel befasst sich mit der mittelalterlichen sowie, teilweise, neuzeitlichen Archäologie Bosnien-Herzegowinas und fasst die dortigen Probleme, die es vor allem in Folge von Nationalismus, religiöser Einflüsse, Korruption Opfermythen sowie allgemein fehlender Mittel gibt. Außerdem wird die Notwendigkeit von strikter Neutralität der Wissenschaft, Rationalität sowie einer Internationalisierung der Archäologie betont.

During the initial research activities conduced by Durde Boskovic in Stari Bar (Antivari) in the 1950's, various fragments of important sculptures and liturgical decorations were discovered, presently preserved in the Museum of city of Bar (fig. 3.1a-g; fig. 3.2.a1; 3.2.a2).
This modest yet important collection includes thirteen fragments of liturgical decorations obtained from enclosed chancel (the area around the alter reserved for the clergy); 60% of the fragments came from items with functional roles (frames, slabs, stone plates/pluteus, and capitals). One fragment of a frame (fig. 3.2.d1-d2) originates from the site of the Monastery of Saint Mary of Ratac, located on the coast to the north-east of the city of Antivari.
The items recovered present distinctive characteristics common to the repertoire of interlaced sculpture productions that were diffuse in the 9th century along the Dalmatian coast, including the Croatian coast and at Medieval Dukljia as well as Kotor/Cattaro; items have also been discovered in the Monastery of St. Michael (de tumba) on the Prevlaka peninsula in the town of Tivat, and in Ulcinji, as well as further inland, such as the decoration of Martinici Gradina, now preserved in Danilovgrad, and in the Balkan area in general.

This report discusses and analyses two ceramic objects defined as supports for a pair of phialae discovered
together with other artefacts in a tumulus located in Radnev geran area near the town of Brezovo,
Plovdiv district. The presence of objects similar to the supports, dated at the Middle Ages, provide grounds
for a debate on their interpretation and chronology.
The supports are stored at NAIM – BAS, recorded in the inventory books under a common number
– No. 1714. They are triangular in shape and the end parts of each of the shoulders are rectangular/rectangular-
oval in shape and with a trapezoid cross-section. Their thickness is 1.1 cm and 0.9 cm, respectively.
On one side, the surface is flat and their even part is carelessly smoothed with visible oblique/diagonal linear
traces. On the other side, pyramidal low feet are modeled at the ends of the stilts. On the tips of one of
the objects, there are visible traces of fired glaze, while on the other, in individual places, there are traces of
present-day chipping – also at the tips of the feet. On the inner surface of the shoulders, there are noticeable
shallow grooves and edges which stop before the zone of the feet and show that they were moulded.
Objects from the Middle Ages are similar to the supports under review. In literature these objects are
known as „ /“ (tripod supports/stools), „
/“ (tripods),
“tripod-stilts”/“props” or “earthenware supports”. They are characteristic of the lands of continental Greece
where they first appeared, and the territories of the Balkan Peninsula and Transcaucasia. These finds are
widespread in Bulgarian lands. There are well-known examples from Vidin, Melnik, Veliko Tarnovo, Shumen
fortress, Cherven, Veliki Preslav, Varna, Sultantsi, Markovcha, Sozopol, and Nesebar.
The presented data about the stilts from Brezovo and their Medieval analogues from the present-day
lands on the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor and Transcaucasia, as well as the presence of glaze on the surface
of the legs of one of the tripods allow their more certain dating at the beginning of the 13th c. at the earliest.

Ако као историчари разматрамо природу Цркве као установе, што је неминовно уколико намеравамо да се позабавимо питањима из историје Византијске цркве и њеним односима са другим помесним Црквама, ипак је потребно кратко се осврнути на времена у којима је Црква настајала, када се црквена организација развијала и њено учење уобличавало.